Startup Oculus VR is securing another $75 million in funding as they work to
bring affordable Oculus Rift virtual reality headsets to the public.
Wired.com
reports that this round of Series B funding should close today, adding to
$16 million in Series A funding raised in June
and the $2.4 million raised by
the project's Kickstarter for a total of over $93 million. The first units
for consumers are expected next
year, and according to Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe they are not looking to raise
any more capital between now and then: "We’re certainly planning for this
to be it as far as funding until the consumer version launches."

Jensen wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 22:54:I found this image that shows a rough approximation of what the 1280*800 LCD looks like inside the devkit. Note the text at the top of the image: "this is how far from the screen you should be"

Yep, that looks about right. Not nearly that dark though (maybe the person who made it didn't have their contrast turned up).

Were you viewing the image at 100%? (you can only see part of the image at 100%) Image scaling in browsers (or most any program) don't use gamma corrected values when scaling down, so they darken images like that. But even at 100%, you are losing more than 3/4 of the brightness by simulating each subpixel and the spaces between them.

DangerDog wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 14:31:I'm more concerned about the negative effects on your vision than motion sickness. Having your eyesight bug out for half an hour after taking them off doesn't sound healthy.

True on that, but the brain is pretty adaptable at things like that. Including reversing your vision, it'll quickly figure out what's wrong and correct it. Even to the point of reorienting the images so it makes sense again. Not so much in those under 18 apparently but adults? No problem. What makes me curious is how well it would work on those of us with brain injuries especially in the occipital lobe. I like the idea, the premise, and all the rest. But things like 3d TV, glasses, and so on don't work properly for me. Either I get blinding headaches, or giant splotches where the image should be but there's nothing.

Sadly, I remember seeing 3D(via polarized glasses) stuff at Disneyland as a kid, and thought it was neat as shit. When I went to Disneyworld last year while I was in FL, I could only see parts of the 3D.

That's because that ain't 3D what they've been selling... it's still a technological scam. Or fake or however you want to call it. Any 3d effect where YOU need to wear glasses is fake and can cause the problems you describe (for most it's just headaches though, and of course, strained eyes.).

There are a few 3D screens that should give you no problem, the nintendo 3ds for example. As that displays real 3D images. The evolution of that is a dynamic parallax barrier that adapts to the position of your eyes so that the 3D effect works from all angles and distances.

This is why I hate 3D in cinemas..... it's not 3D, it's 2 flat images. And 2 flat images does not make something 3D if it isn't adapted to my PERSONAL perspective.

Wildone wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 10:32:It already was delivering the low res head tracking and they have HD screens already, it was already amazing before so I cant even imagine the finished version. 100% immersion this thing is the BALLZ

This is one hardware application where 4K will truly make a difference.

And where pray tell do you find a GPU that runs any modern game at 100+ fps with dual views (needed for 2 eyes) on 4k resolution? Because that's what you need for the rift.

I dunno about you, but if anything the Rift will severely benefit from GPU evolution first and foremost. Currently there doesn't even exist hardware that could run a modern game at 2k resolution above 100fps with 2 views. Ie, actually you need to render 200fps.... If you display 2 viewpoints, the render cost is not negligible

And yes, I know the rift uses 1 screen = ie you render 2 views side-by-side in 1 window, but this does not change anything, the render cost is 2x as all the modern GPU shaders are camera position dependent. 2 camera positions = twice the render cost.

Jensen wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 22:54:I found this image that shows a rough approximation of what the 1280*800 LCD looks like inside the devkit. Note the text at the top of the image: "this is how far from the screen you should be"

Yep, that looks about right. Not nearly that dark though (maybe the person who made it didn't have their contrast turned up). If the UI isn't built for the Rift, text can be nearly impossible to read on the dev kit. In HL2 during that first water scene where you swim around while the enemy drops flaming barrels on you, it can be difficult to see much detail on them. There is the screen-door, also, but that kind of vanishes after a while.

Anytime I show someone the Rift, I warn them before hand that the resolution on the dev version is shit. I'm looking forward to buying the HD one, though.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 21:36:120Hz just isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not if you're talking about resolutions in excess of 1080p. Some games would work fine but most multi-GPU setups wouldn't be able to pump out the framerates required at 1440p, let alone 4K. You either go for a high resolution and sacrifice the refresh rate or go for the refresh rate and sacrifice the resolution.

Even at 1440p a dual 290X setup can only manage 90fps in BF3, 70fps in Metro: Last Light and 70fps in Crysis 3. Given the overhead for processing the two-images (they are calculated from different perspectives) a 1440p display will likely struggle to hit 60fps in a lot of games.

Sadly I think 1080p@60Hz is all we can expect given current GPU limitations, otherwise the potential audience is just too small (and I say that as someone who games @1600p).

The other option is just accepting that you won't be able to play the most graphically intense games out there at high settings. 1080p at 120Hz is about the same as a 2560x1600 at 60hz. In VR, I think I'd rather have a strobed 120hz 1080p display than a 4k display at 60hz. The former would only take half the power.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 21:36:120Hz just isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not if you're talking about resolutions in excess of 1080p. Some games would work fine but most multi-GPU setups wouldn't be able to pump out the framerates required at 1440p, let alone 4K. You either go for a high resolution and sacrifice the refresh rate or go for the refresh rate and sacrifice the resolution.

Even at 1440p a dual 290X setup can only manage 90fps in BF3, 70fps in Metro: Last Light and 70fps in Crysis 3. Given the overhead for processing the two-images (they are calculated from different perspectives) a 1440p display will likely struggle to hit 60fps in a lot of games.

Sadly I think 1080p@60Hz is all we can expect given current GPU limitations, otherwise the potential audience is just too small (and I say that as someone who games @1600p).

Well then I'll look at this as a reason we need a lot more power vs many provably think we already have enough.

120Hz just isn't going to happen any time soon, at least not if you're talking about resolutions in excess of 1080p. Some games would work fine but most multi-GPU setups wouldn't be able to pump out the framerates required at 1440p, let alone 4K. You either go for a high resolution and sacrifice the refresh rate or go for the refresh rate and sacrifice the resolution.

Even at 1440p a dual 290X setup can only manage 90fps in BF3, 70fps in Metro: Last Light and 70fps in Crysis 3. Given the overhead for processing the two-images (they are calculated from different perspectives) a 1440p display will likely struggle to hit 60fps in a lot of games.

Sadly I think 1080p@60Hz is all we can expect given current GPU limitations, otherwise the potential audience is just too small (and I say that as someone who games @1600p).

Leper wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 19:28:I'm optimistic about this. The difference between looking at a screen and being immersed in a world from a audio/visual standpoint is so significant it will be worth whatever limitations the initial consumer product will inevitably have.

Cabezone wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 14:50:I don't have trouble steering my car and looking around

Sim driving games with Oculus, that's what I am most excited about.

It seems like the perfect application for VR: the user is already seated and using driving controls, matching that of the digital environment and character. With Oculus you'll be able to look around the interior of a car like the McLaren MP4-12C, survey action in the mirrors and shoulder check blindspots. It will also overcome the biggest disadvantage to a single screen setup, being able turn ones head and look for the second or third apex ahead.

I'm tempted to pickup a development kit just to try out iRacing...

Also flight sims where you need to look ahead of where your jet is pointing to line up a runway or an enemy in your gun sights. Same with a helo, where the ability to easily look left or right or at the instruments really increases the immersiveness.

dj LiTh wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 14:58:Nintendo power glove that goes with it or no sale (mine broke).

Its so bad.

Absolutely, something they'll both have in common i have no doubt. Might as well ducktape your forhead to your LCD screen and snort a few crushed up pills of dram amine to see if you can acclimate now lol

I'm optimistic about this. The difference between looking at a screen and being immersed in a world from a audio/visual standpoint is so significant it will be worth whatever limitations the initial consumer product will inevitably have.

Frags4Fun wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 11:05:Unfortunately, there is no way to "fix" the motion sickness. Once you try it, you'll see that it's just something that you gotta get used to rather than being something that can be fixed. When you move your head or body and the screen doesn't match up with what your brain is expecting from your physical senses, it causes the sickness, dizziness, and can even make you reach out to stop yourself from falling at times. It's also dangerous for people with high blood pressure because for some reason it stresses your heart. It might be something that we can learn to overcome, but there is no technical fix. There's also the problem where it messes up your real world vision after you take them off. I experience balance issues as well as having trouble focusing on objects at different distances and it took me about a half hour to feel normal again. I sure hope that there will be a way to test them out before buying them because many people are going to find that they can't use them.

For any simulation in which all camera movement is only provided by the user's head movements and position, I think the simulation sickness could be greatly reduced. On the other hand, if you're riding a virtual roller-coaster, car or mech, of course you may get motion sickness just like you do in real life. The first time I experienced 60 FPS in a racing game (when I got the original 3dfx voodoo card) I felt sick.

A few things should help:1. absolute positional tracking2. a 120hz screen with a strobing/scrolling backlight. Most motion blur in LCDs (or even some OLEDS, such as in the Vita) is because the image is displayed for the full duration of the frame, not because of pixel response times.3. Reducing lag. A higher refresh rate helps with this, too.4. Be careful about simulating things that are very close to the viewer that require the viewer's attention. If the viewer is constantly looking at something that is simulated to be closer than 5 feet away but still focusing at infinity, they may get headaches. The lower resolution may make this less of a factor.

Dude..I tried a few shitty flight sim demo's they had, and even they where amazing it made you feel like you WHERE in the cockpit, I could look around and see the machine Im sitting in and it felt real. Absolutely amazing.

Cabezone wrote on Dec 13, 2013, 14:50:I don't have trouble steering my car and looking around

Sim driving games with Oculus, that's what I am most excited about.

It seems like the perfect application for VR: the user is already seated and using driving controls, matching that of the digital environment and character. With Oculus you'll be able to look around the interior of a car like the McLaren MP4-12C, survey action in the mirrors and shoulder check blindspots. It will also overcome the biggest disadvantage to a single screen setup, being able turn ones head and look for the second or third apex ahead.